Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Storage Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Porter County board denies use variance for trailer and dumpster storage at 700 North
Summary
The Porter County board denied a petition by Cole Garretson to permit business activities (parking trailers and dumpsters) at his Portis Township property after neighbors raised safety and setback concerns; the board recorded a 3-0 vote to deny the variance.
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Storage Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Porter County board denied a use-variance request from Cole Garretson to permit business activities and outdoor storage of trailers and dumpsters at his property on 700 North (452 West 700 North) in Portis Township.
Garretson told the board he operates a small dumpster rental and junk-removal business and sought permission to store up to three trailers on the two-acre parcel. He described limited daily movement: "I park my trailers there. I would like to continue doing so... Most of the time they're rented out," he said. Garretson offered to install a fence to screen the equipment from public view.
Several nearby residents opposed the variance. Patrick Wegser submitted a packet alleging setback violations and warned about the safety risk posed by roll-off dumpsters and backing movements; he described the equipment as an "attractive nuisance" near children. Katie Webster, whose yard sits adjacent to the proposed storage area, said her family's play area was nine feet from the lot and described diesel truck noise and safety concerns for her young children.
Board members discussed the high-profile rural residential location and outdoor storage in a residential corridor; several members expressed apprehension about permitting commercial outdoor storage in that setting. After discussion, the board moved to deny UV-2025-8. The clerk read the ballot: Luther Williams — yes; Jim Clarida — yes; Marvin Brickner — yes. The motion to deny carried 3-0.
The petitioner said he could seek alternative commercial parking or proposed to erect a fence, but the board concluded the parcel's context and neighbors' safety concerns outweighed the petitioner's proposed mitigations.

